Help! I went down the gear rabbit hole and dont know what to get

[resistorman]

Mention was made of the "ADA8200" and I am sure they are pretty good but OP mentioned "crap budget mixers" and I would suggest that the mic/line pres on that Behringer ADAT unit are lifted straight from their mixer designs?

Also, and no one else has commented on this, but in his original post the image is obscured by other stuff which I cannot get rid of. I have had this problem on other forums with imgur posts. Can anyone help?

Dave.

Audient Evo SP8 would probably be a significant step up from the Behringer for sensible money.

I don't know if that's true. The preamps appear to be from their XR/ MR range which are quite good.

[Wonks]

The ADA8200 resides at the bottom of Hugh's AES17 interface A/D dynamic range test list (103dB), whilst the lowest Audient (ASP800) result is 9dB better (112dB). The Audient ASP 880 was better still at 116.5 dB. And Hugh did say that the dynamic range coincided with his perception of preamp quality.

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... hp?t=79727

If you are on a tight budget, and you aren't recording a lot of quiet sources, then the ADA8200 is fine (say for recording a drum kit or mic a guitar amp), but there are better interfaces for a bit more money that will cover a wider range of recording situations.

[ef37a]

My point really Drew, if the OP is agin' budget mixer circuits I doubt he would be happy with what is in the Behrry ADA. (whether anyone could really tell the difference unless they have very high end sources and monitoring is as ever a moot point!)

Any ideas about my 'cluttered' imgur pictures?

Dave.

[Arpangel]

The ADA8200 resides at the bottom of Hugh's AES17 interface A/D dynamic range test list (103dB), whilst the lowest Audient (ASP800) result is 9dB better (112dB). The Audient ASP 880 was better still at 116.5 dB. And Hugh did say that the dynamic range coincided with his perception of preamp quality.

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... hp?t=79727

If you are on a tight budget, and you aren't recording a lot of quiet sources, then the ADA8200 is fine (say for recording a drum kit or mic a guitar amp), but there are better interfaces for a bit more money that will cover a wider range of recording situations.

Is not the 82000 better than a tape machine of many decades ago? that was used to record all types of great music with no issues that anyone cared about, and people still enjoyed the music.
Are differences of a few dB in range going to be important enough to write off certain interfaces as unusable?

[Wonks]

True, but it's more the fact that the dynamic range seems to tie-in with the overall conversion quality and attention to detail in the circuit design.

[ef37a]

The ADA8200 resides at the bottom of Hugh's AES17 interface A/D dynamic range test list (103dB), whilst the lowest Audient (ASP800) result is 9dB better (112dB). The Audient ASP 880 was better still at 116.5 dB. And Hugh did say that the dynamic range coincided with his perception of preamp quality.

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... hp?t=79727

If you are on a tight budget, and you aren't recording a lot of quiet sources, then the ADA8200 is fine (say for recording a drum kit or mic a guitar amp), but there are better interfaces for a bit more money that will cover a wider range of recording situations.

Is not the 82000 better than a tape machine of many decades ago? that was used to record all types of great music with no issues that anyone cared about, and people still enjoyed the music.
Are differences of a few dB in range going to be important enough to write off certain interfaces as unusable?

Quite right Toni, almost any interface made today will have a better specification in almost all departments than the very best tape machine of the 70s including the oft forgotten wow and flutter and the distortion created by flutter (I can still remember Angus Mackenzie in Hi Fi News often bemoaning the difficulty of getting clean results of choral works on tape)

But, friend OP has made up his mind that budget mixers are of lower audio quality than more expensive ones (and to be fair to Behringer he does not actually mention them by name) and so, even if he really could not hear a difference he will likely never be comfortable with 'just good enough'.

Dave.

[Aled Hughes]

i realize now, the above could possibly be done all with 1 device.

There is a very simple and short answer to your questions.
There are many destinations, and many ways of travelling to those destinations, a horse, an airliner, a massive ship, or a tiny canoe.
What you choose will be more about the way you feel you need to interact with the instruments you use, not about the instruments themselves.
Most things can be done with a phone and a pair of headphones, it's up to you how you want to interact, and how comfortable you feel with what you have.
Despite what some may say, equipment choices aren’t as important as some people think they are.

fwiw:
- i dont like menu diving. i like touchy feely. i want something real. i use a DAW because of some conveniences, but many times i thought about ditching it all and going all through tape...and dumping to computer after. im just scared of wasting $.
- i like analog 'sound'. a perfect example is if you listen to Greg Howe's Introspection album recorded in 80s. Then Wheelhouse album (2010s). Introspection sounds so much better IMO. the instruments seem to have 'their own place' in the mix.

the end of the day productivity is most important for me. i dont wanna be an audiophile at expense of not getting stuff done. just need to make decisions...

There are an infinite number or reasons why one album might sound very different to another - don't get hung up on just the recording format!

Digital is as 'real' as analog. And when it comes to control, nothing is as hands-on and tactile as a mouse! You have immediate control of three axes (if you have a scrollwheel) with one hand! A fader and a knob can't come close to that...

If you're scared of wasting money, in my opinion a summing mixer is a about the worst thing you could consider. Great sound is a result of good musicianship, good engineering and good working practise. There is great sounding music done on all digital equipment and awful record done on analog, and vice-versa, and all points in between!

Bear in mind you can use ADAT to exand your Babyface's inputs AND outputs.

[Arpangel]

There are an infinite number or reasons why one album might sound very different to another - don't get hung up on just the recording format!

There is one reason, there is no right or wrong way to use a studio, it’s entirely down to the imagination and requirements of the individual, and the word “different” is the key.
Some Beatles albums sound f*****g terrible from a technical point of view and all of the Velvet Underground stuff is awful, but it’s all great music, and technical quality is like putting the cart before the horse.

[jaguarguitar]

hello, thanks for all the input.

the reason i specifically mentioned those albums by Greg Howe, is actually because I believe the musicianship and playing is even better on Wheelhouse. But imo it 'sounds' like total garbage, the guitar tone is digital sounding (i wouldnt doubt if its an amp sim but who knows), etc. compared to introspection. im not saying amp sims are bad. its just not for me. im selling my katana 50 because it has all this stupid app connection blah blah i dont want any of that crap.

some of this resentment may come from the fact i worked in IT for a decade and ive grown to hate working with screens. it is what it is. theres lots of things i can do with a DAW now i couldnt years ago. BTW, I do use studio one and i love studio one.

"friend OP has made up his mind that budget mixers are of lower audio quality than more expensive ones (and to be fair to Behringer he does not actually mention them by name) and so, even if he really could not hear a difference he will likely never be comfortable with 'just good enough'."

i dont think i said that! i only got the RME babyface because my friend at the time (who was a total gearsl..) pushed me towards it. at the time, i actually wanted to get a focusrite clarett because, well you guessed it, in/out limitation. im agnostic w.r.t. to brands

there were some suggestions:
evo16 - that was one of the ones on my spreadsheet actually. julian krause? on youtube, reviewed it and said the s/n ratio was not so good. latency was okay. i dont know realistically if this would matter?

franklin direct box - this is very good to know about, doesnt do everything i want, but potentially could be useful

audient asp800 preamp - i tried searching reverb, couldnt find any for sale

icon controller - very good to know, i will check it.

presonus 32sx - the 'livesound' subreddit has nothing but bad things to say about the presonus. now this is not being used for 'live' shows or something, so i dont know if i need to be concerned about that. it ticks off all the boxes though. one guy i found on youtube said he ended up selling it because the 'daw' mode (which seems like an afterthought for this mixer) was a bit clunky.

yamaha d3s - mehhhhh...mixed feelings. seems menu divingy and i mean, i kind of want to get away from more screens. the bigger thing though is only 4 line ins which is not enough.

any thoughts about the Zed R16 I found for 700$? too old? its firewire.
i also found an Art Pro Tube OctoPre for $350 used from my local music store.

i dont know how much i need to be concerned about 'preamp' quality. before the babyface i had a steinberg ci1? now THAT sounded like total garbage but even that 'worked'. im sure all these newer interfaces are miles ahead these days?

i'd rather buy used, but if i was to buy new i think a company with decent support would be helpful in case i need to (hopefully not) clock in a warranty.

also, i dont wanna buy stuff i'd 'want to replace' in the future, if that makes sense.

at this point im leaning to something like the evo16, studiolive16 or the like. the adding 'adat to rme for now' is also a good idea. any other recommendations besides the audient asp008? the ada8200 then?

thanks for actually replying everyone, i cannot thank you enough.

[Drew Stephenson]

there were some suggestions:
evo16 - that was one of the ones on my spreadsheet actually. julian krause? on youtube, reviewed it and said the s/n ratio was not so good. latency was okay. i dont know realistically if this would matter?

Specs and review here would suggest nothing to worry about: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/audient-evo-16

[Hugh Robjohns]

Audient quote a dynamic range for the A-D of 112.5 dB-A and 121dB-A for the D-A. The dynamic range is usually lower for A-Ds for technical reasons. In this case the figure is virtually the same as that for the popular ASP800 8-channel preamp.

The D-As figure is up there with the best currently available, while the former... isn't — although I dont know to what standard Audient measured the dynamic range.

That said, it's performance is still very good, and at least 10dB better than the bottom runners. Being realistic, there are vanishingly few situations where 112dB of dynamic range won't be more than enough as the recorded noise floor is usually defined by the source rather than the converter — be it electronic instrument noise or acoustic noise captured by a mic.

Added to which, the mic preamp in the Evo itself has a signal/noise ratio of 100dB, so the converter isn't cramping its abilities — and it's a decent quality preamp.

So, technically, the A-D dynamic range in the Evo16 is probably 5 or 6dB below that of the very best interfaces, but in practice it's never going to cause any problems in the home studio applications it was designed for. ...and you wouldn't be paying high-end prices!

[resistorman]

The original diagram shows mostly line level gear, so all the hairsplitting about preamps is unnecessary

[jaguarguitar]

the man himself, thank you so much for chiming in Hugh! i am learning a lot from your articles, thanks.

this was the video i saw, where when the gain was cranked the noise floor was audibly higher was this video at 9:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buuGUKx ... lianKrause

if im cranking a sm57 for gain, would it be a problem for example? i might do other things like bounce to Reel to Reel and back into my daw, in the future. could that added up lack of quality make a difference?
-----------------------------
the arturia rig16 also had my eye. but it has only 2 pres. there is the Arturia 8pre they make which is supposed to be really good in terms of the pres. but they are a software company, not sure how much they would support their hardware? the guy at the local music store told me to steer clear of em.
---------------------------
as i was typing out this response, i realized i forgot to mentioned why i put a main 'mixer' in the original diagram.

- i wanted to be able to 'jam' stuff out to the boss rc-505 without needing to use my DAW sometimes. or if im practicing soloing over changes. its nice to do it without a computer distraction.
- the added benefit of analog is analog summing on mixdowns. i heard some youtube shootouts with a Soundcraft MTK22 and I heard an audible, pleasing difference.
- coupled with a patchbay (half-normalled? or direct outs on mixer), i could also send that audio to my interface too.

the soundcraft mtk22 is what i had my eye initially and seemed to do everything i wanted. but i read a ton of reliability concerns regarding the PSU which seems to fail out. do i want to buy something i know is probably going to crap out? theres repair kits on a facebook group. but again, it seems risky.

studio one has a looping feature too. the added cost of keeping the computer off, may not be worth it.
-------------------------
eventually i want to build out DIY 500 series racks of preamps, comps, eq. in this case, does 'quality' of interface preamps even really matter (if they could be bypassed)? i think i might just be splitting hairs at this point.
---------------------------
another option is - something like a ferrofish pulse16, get some 'cheaper' ADAT pres (behringer or art tube pres), and in the future once the 500 series stuff is built, dump em and use the diy 500 series. would that be better?
---------------------------
i went back through exactly what i need, and this is my current 'ins/outs' requirements.

current:
- need 8 mic pres (ideally 9 but 8 is okay)
- 2 Hi-Z inputs
- 7 line-level inputs
- multiple outs if poss
in future: may need another 8 mic pres should i choose to track drums/have space for a drum kit in the future. bringing to a total of 16 'pres' if i was to 'futureproof.'
----------------------------
i ruled out:
- the studiolive16r - no adat expandability only 8 combi jacks.
- the antelope audio zen studio - too old and looked beaten up.

so my remaining options are something like a zed 24, evo 16 + sp8, arturia 16rig (with an 8pre?), studiolive 32sx

[jaguarguitar]

i was just thinking as well - since im a one-man band at this point.. if i was to make a 500 series rack in the future, it'd be economical to just make like 2 pres, 2 comps, 2 eqs. as opposed to doing it for the same number of sources!

in which case, perhaps a patchbay would be necessary (or inserts of some sort?) on an audio interface could be helpful, down the line. . .

[jaguarguitar]

The original diagram shows mostly line level gear, so all the hairsplitting about preamps is unnecessary

not quite, please see my recent post. i need about 8 pres, 7 lines, 2 hi-z.

[Aled Hughes]

Have a look to see if the Cranborne 500 ADAT fits the bill for you - it’s an ADAT equipped 500 rack. Or the 500 R8 which is an interface.

[Drew Stephenson]

Have a look to see if the Cranborne 500 ADAT fits the bill for you - it’s an ADAT equipped 500 rack. Or the 500 R8 which is an interface.

Was just about to suggest this ^^^ after seeing your 500-series comment.
Zero worries about the Cranborne noise / performance specs.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...this was the video i saw, where when the gain was cranked the noise floor was audibly higher was this video at 9:27...

I'd say barely higher. Relevant if you're trying to record gnat farts at 10 feet with an SM7B... But not if you're recording a guitar amp, or you're singing into a big shiny mic from 2 inches.

if im cranking a sm57 for gain, would it be a problem for example?

Depends on what you're recording...

i might do other things like bounce to Reel to Reel and back into my daw, in the future. could that added up lack of quality make a difference?

Unlikely

[jaguarguitar]

LMAO "record gnat farts at 10 feet with an SM7B"

thank you, this is actually pretty helpful.

im probably going to pull the trigger on the evo16 or a zed r16. ill update here when ive ordered in case anyone is curious!

[Aled Hughes]

I'd steer clear of Firewire (ie. the Zed R16) kit in this day and age!

[Sam Spoons]

Me too, USB2 is more than sufficient for dozens of audio channels so any need for FW has long gone. If you buy a FW device consider it's useful life to be the same as the (old?) computer you are currently running it on.

[jaguarguitar]

i know, problem though is i can't find another analog board with bidirectional ins/outs not on firewire unless anyone knows of one?

worst case scenario i just use direct outs going into an interface like the evo16/name-your-interface

i could use just an interface with a software mixer. i believe the way these work is you set the mixer functionality you want before powering off the computer and the device keeps that state. but i find that not so ideal

theres also the studiolive series 3 which im still researching...also at this point im probably going to keep the control surface a separate thing and get something like a faderport.

[Aled Hughes]

i know, problem though is i can't find another analog board with bidirectional ins/outs not on firewire unless anyone knows of one?

worst case scenario i just use direct outs going into an interface like the evo16/name-your-interface

i could use just an interface with a software mixer. i believe the way these work is you set the mixer functionality you want before powering off the computer and the device keeps that state. but i find that not so ideal

theres also the studiolive series 3 which im still researching...also at this point im probably going to keep the control surface a separate thing and get something like a faderport.

It really depends how you want to do things. The audio/music world can still be very conservative/traditionalist when it comes to a belief in 'the old ways' and analog formats and hardware (it's almost Brexit-like on occasion - "Make our music great again!"), so there is always plenty of options available both new and used.
I'd really recommend having a look at the Cranborne 500 ADAT in your case, as it is a very flexible box and might well tick all your needs in conjunction with the Babyface - depending on the hardware 500 modules you install, it can be a preamp, channel strip, master bus processor, summing mixer etc.

It's also worth taking the time considering if you really need all those mic inputs at the same time. I can see why you'd need 8 if you're recording a drumkit, but if it's just one or two mics at a time, why do you need 8?
Maybe having two high-quality all-rounder microphones plugged in at all times will have you ready for anything.
Two Camden 500 preamps in the Cranborne 500 ADAT, for instances, has you sorted for two mic channels as well as 2-channel analog processing for any stems or mixes you'd want to pass through, leaving 6 slots free for anything else you might like - stereo compressor and EQ, for instance.

Bear in mind that working with hardware is slow, expensive and a total pain if you need to revisit a mix later on etc. If it's your own time and money it can be great fun, but if you've got deadlines to meet and kids to feed it's no good!

[Sam Spoons]

If it was me and the budget was sufficient I'd buy a Midas M32R Live. We know the M/X32 software works extremely well with few limitations in the latest form and the M32 has the Midas mic preamps which are pretty good, certainly good enough not to be a limitation. Since they launched it Behringer have probably sold more X32s than the rest of the digital mixing desk manufacturers combined and reliability has proved to be exceptional so while my heart says Allen & Heath SQ5 my head says Midas M32R.

If the budget is limited I'd say X32 (I'd buy my Compact again if it died and I couldn't afford a Midas). I reckon the preamps are not as good as the Midas or A&H but if I can't get decent results out of them I should probably take up knitting instead...

[jaguarguitar]

hi Aled

hi Aled,

my hesitation with cranborne, is:
- not enough line in/mic-in. i need 8 mic ins, 7 line-ins, 2 hi-z. id need two cranbornes in this case and 8 500 series pres. its a lot of $ up front. i think it'd be about $12000 + tax. and even then, it doesn't give me the flexibility to:
- need ability to route the sources to my boss rc-505 for if i want to jam stuff. i want to write away from the computer sometimes with just synths and instruments, not scrolling the plugin ut(dys?)opia.

i think i really need a mixer for what i want to do + an external interface if no mtr is available on the mixer. i think using a 500 series as an insert on a mixer or interface would be more flexible.

it goes back to the diagram i posted earlier.

although im recording/jamming one thing at a time, that is kind of part of the issue. i want to leave things mic'd and ready to go, with gain levels set. im working on an album and doing the recording, editing, mixing myself and its a lot of work and i get frustrated having to set up-take down stuff. i need a better workflow. whatever things i can take out of the equation during recording/writing would make it easier.

ill be the first to admit part of it is a 'ME' problem but i do think having things ready to go, and a 'base daw' template/session would make things far easier.

sometimes i come up with a bass line...a guitar line..a melody, synth line, etc. i want to be able to jam the stuff on the boss rc-505, and then when ready, go and record the sources 'properly.'

its more mics but thats okay because its less setting up-setting down. i can do a lot of what i need with sm57s and a couple other mics like a ribbon, etc. i have a 20 x 20 foot room, so i just want to leave my instruments out ready to go.

ive gone to a pro studio before for doing vocal tracks + reamping, and the engineer told me there i 'knew what i was doing' and that i could save $$$ doing things like reamping guitars at home at such. and i think it makes sense. not to mention studio time is very expensive here